EXCLUSIVE: FOX News staged fake interview with Michelle Malkin
Gianluca D'Agostino
October 31, 2009
here's the video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FKafcRz6RpI&feature=player_embedded
Assumed Political Analyst Michelle Malkin might have read pre-written soundbites from the teleprompter
October 28 at 00:00 hours CT on Fox News show Hannity, Michelle Malkin a political expert/analyst kicked in on Hannity to talk against Harry Reid's public option plan.
As you can clearly perceive since the beginning of this video interview, Ms. Michelle Malkin seems reading her soundbites entirely from the prompter in front of her.
You can tell it from a number of elements: from her eye-movement, her pupils looked straight down and you can perceive they' re slightly moving from left to right as when you read a text in big capitol letters from a prompter put just in front of you but maybe a little too far for her.
The prompter was probably too far or there was something else wrong. You can tell it from the fact she stammered on many occasion and going very slow, rythmless and tuneless on every sentence and the sentence had always a slow meaningless rythm, like when you re expressing a thought that does not belong to yourself and you re reading it for the first time having no idea what you re talking about.
Maybe she was not thinking to what she was reading of, she just read her speech on the prompter. Also her speech got broken and went wrong in many occasions mistaking words like she couldnīt read properly and clearly what was written in the teleprompter. Another clue is given by the fact she stammered on many occasions unexpectedly. A situation usually occurring when you re not the text author and you don't know its content by heart.
The funniest fact that also has value of evidence is when she pronounced the word "Sean", absolutely tuneless as if you in effect are reading it from a rolling text and you are not able to give the right emotion to it, unless you re an experienced actress.
Those soundbites were too long and the teleprompter is a little square shaped monitor that slowly rolls little portions of text in a grey or white background with white or darker capitol letters.
Ms. Malkin's reading was very very slow and her confused and tuneless sentences didnīt make any sense. Her reading become more evident when she reached the period not expecting to be at the end of the sentence. This made her spech to sound completely meaningless.
The part of the interview in which Ms. Malkin completely lost control of her reading is after Sean Hannity showed her the healthcare video contest winner (the one with the graffiti American flag), after the video ended she made the most UNspontaneous speech ever made. If she picked up a paper sheet and read it up she probably would have made her reading less evident.
A real evidence is when she said: "...and if you don't give to them then not only do you wish death upon children but puppies and everything that is American as well..." in this part of her speech you can clearly realize she's reading a text because her big pupils move from left to right and also because after she ended reading her eyelids got so relaxed that completely changed her facial expression.
Another important clue that proves the interview is fake is when Ms. Malkin answered all the questions just a second after Hannity ended talking. On the other hand, Mr. Hannity waited almost every answer till she reached the end of them.
In the video none of the two interrupts the other and this means probably Hannity had a copy of her answering speech, and I strongly suspect he is also the author of the script. You can understand it from the way he poses questions, because it sounds like when you already know the answer but you want to hear it back like a fairy tale from a school child.
Unfortunately these guys are not very good actors. The last important evidence is the fact that usually Michelle Malkin doesnīt talk that slow, if you watch her interviews, she is much more secure and self assured, she usually speaks faster and laughs pretty often during her speeches.
At first sight you won't notice she's reading because of her large dark black pupils blurring with her iris color. This particular characteristics makes it harder to spot eye-movements but for some reason in this video her eye-movement can be easily perceived by a keen eye.
They based this genius project on the fact that most of viewers cannot check these details live, (it's actually simply less probable but not impossible) but tv producers have to realize that everything that goes on television then goes to Internet and viewers can watch it anytime in slow motion, full screen, close ups etc....Tv viewers can get distracted but it's not like thirty or twenty years ago, today tv watchers became real video experts. I really can't understand how Mr. Hannity who is a world famous tv professional could have made such a beginner's mistake.
The ironic side of this episode is Ms. Malkin's bestseller book title: "the culture of corruption", well this genious interview should be included in her book spin-off or better in the next re-print. (I would be happy to write a foreword) Also, if a bestselling author happens to be part of a staged interview, maybe viewers can doubt the fact she wrote her brand new book by herself, or if she had some ghostwriter helping her in the writing process.
Now a series of questions spontaneously come up:
If FOX news needs this kind of tricks, risking their credibility, this means they're really desperate. It seems they're exploring any possible way to discredit the health care public option even through news fabrication.
Indeed this episode was more funny than serious, because Ms. Malkin is just a source for opinions, not a source of facts. In effect she could have had the text learned by heart and then have it spitted out once she learned it. Maybe she was at the hairstylist and hadn't the time to do it.
But still even if it's not a big deal, the fact has to be analyzed because it's a matter of form. Why you need to spit out your bias under the form of interview instead of just reading a text message? It would have been nicer.
Michelle Malkin is a beautyful nice woman and everybody will forgive her because of a little reading...come on guys!!! Being Italian, gallantry is my second name...
Fox news should at least introducing the viewers to this new form of broadcasting and journalism, I think it would be fair to those journalism students who want to learn the job from real professionals!!
Certainly they should have a very good reason to set up such a strange interview, we are in the field of assumptions here: probably Ms. Malkin did not feel that well and preferred to read the answers instead of thinking to each of them when she was posed a question. It's understandable: a very committed intellective scholar doesn't have time for such a thing.
A couple of weeks ago, when Fox news was under the White House fire, Monica Crowley was defending Fox from the WH remarks by saying: "Fox news is the only network raising questions" I would say to beautyful Monica that Fox news not only raise questions but they also provide for the answers....because if you want to be fair and balanced you should provide not only for questions but for answers too.
The big deal now could be the fact that this episode might lead people to think that maybe there are more of these kind of interviews.....
It would be nice to see them all.
Some could also raise the question: Is this reflecting the Fox motto: "we report you decide?"
I really appreciate Fox news, I wouldn't be honest if I say I don't, despite having sometimes criticized its anchors, but being a tv narrative expert that's my job and that's also part of the game.
if you re passionate on news and reporting and you like a little bit of bias in your reports and interviews, you have to accept some critics as well.
Fox news programming is very passionate and I always tune in because I really love passionate journalism, as it's something very rare at today as people cannot care less of politics and social issues, that's why receiving critics and keeping up a confrontation is the most genuine, sincere and lovely human business. It would be very sad if reporting and news production being just a cold communication to the audience. Feedback and confrontation keep us alive and it's another step towards human evolution.
We won't suggest Fox news to check all Michelle Malkins interviews we suggest FOX news anchors to be more accurate on their guests booking.
Passion and fervor are great feelings but journalism is clarity, brevity and accuracy. The bias attitude and the hammering and bashing at every cost doesn't pay it. How can you think of fooling the American viewers by playing a soap opera dialogue instead of an interview?
And most of all once you re busted, your motto "fair and balanced" will sound like a joke. I think Michelle Malkin did not pay enough respect to
the Fox motto too.
Anyway these people at Fox they all are from the old school and they still have to realize that with the coming of the Internet age, television has changed. Mostly it's changed the way television is perceived and used.
Viewers do not watch tv just glued to the screen swallowing every Michelle Malkin who pops into the screen. These new generation of viewers might seem less careful on politic issues but they're more attentive and focused on the way you broadcast news and all sort of contents. Foreinstance documentaries and tv series always perform an expert analyzing a video explaining all details. From the Life of plants to Moon Landing to CSI there is always an expert performing video analysis on every single detail. How can you think viewers can let Michelle
Malkin walk into Fox News reading her piece and just walk away? Foolish.
Internet and technology gave viewers youtube, editing and slow motion tools. Look into the Internet there is a number of websites that check tv shows everyday looking for bloopers and all kind of mistakes: slipups.com, metacafe.com tvparty.com just to name you a few. The game has changed and viewers are not those silly folks of the fifties.
I think the anxiety and the fervor to talk against the public option and the dems was much stronger than set the stage up right and this strong feeling played Michelle Malkin a bad trick.
In central Italy there is a proverb that tells "the greedy festers your teeth!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FKafcRz6RpI&feature=player_embedded
Assumed Political Analyst Michelle Malkin might have read pre-written soundbites from the teleprompter
October 28 at 00:00 hours CT on Fox News show Hannity, Michelle Malkin a political expert/analyst kicked in on Hannity to talk against Harry Reid's public option plan.
As you can clearly perceive since the beginning of this video interview, Ms. Michelle Malkin seems reading her soundbites entirely from the prompter in front of her.
You can tell it from a number of elements: from her eye-movement, her pupils looked straight down and you can perceive they' re slightly moving from left to right as when you read a text in big capitol letters from a prompter put just in front of you but maybe a little too far for her.
The prompter was probably too far or there was something else wrong. You can tell it from the fact she stammered on many occasion and going very slow, rythmless and tuneless on every sentence and the sentence had always a slow meaningless rythm, like when you re expressing a thought that does not belong to yourself and you re reading it for the first time having no idea what you re talking about.
Maybe she was not thinking to what she was reading of, she just read her speech on the prompter. Also her speech got broken and went wrong in many occasions mistaking words like she couldnīt read properly and clearly what was written in the teleprompter. Another clue is given by the fact she stammered on many occasions unexpectedly. A situation usually occurring when you re not the text author and you don't know its content by heart.
The funniest fact that also has value of evidence is when she pronounced the word "Sean", absolutely tuneless as if you in effect are reading it from a rolling text and you are not able to give the right emotion to it, unless you re an experienced actress.
Those soundbites were too long and the teleprompter is a little square shaped monitor that slowly rolls little portions of text in a grey or white background with white or darker capitol letters.
Ms. Malkin's reading was very very slow and her confused and tuneless sentences didnīt make any sense. Her reading become more evident when she reached the period not expecting to be at the end of the sentence. This made her spech to sound completely meaningless.
The part of the interview in which Ms. Malkin completely lost control of her reading is after Sean Hannity showed her the healthcare video contest winner (the one with the graffiti American flag), after the video ended she made the most UNspontaneous speech ever made. If she picked up a paper sheet and read it up she probably would have made her reading less evident.
A real evidence is when she said: "...and if you don't give to them then not only do you wish death upon children but puppies and everything that is American as well..." in this part of her speech you can clearly realize she's reading a text because her big pupils move from left to right and also because after she ended reading her eyelids got so relaxed that completely changed her facial expression.
Another important clue that proves the interview is fake is when Ms. Malkin answered all the questions just a second after Hannity ended talking. On the other hand, Mr. Hannity waited almost every answer till she reached the end of them.
In the video none of the two interrupts the other and this means probably Hannity had a copy of her answering speech, and I strongly suspect he is also the author of the script. You can understand it from the way he poses questions, because it sounds like when you already know the answer but you want to hear it back like a fairy tale from a school child.
Unfortunately these guys are not very good actors. The last important evidence is the fact that usually Michelle Malkin doesnīt talk that slow, if you watch her interviews, she is much more secure and self assured, she usually speaks faster and laughs pretty often during her speeches.
At first sight you won't notice she's reading because of her large dark black pupils blurring with her iris color. This particular characteristics makes it harder to spot eye-movements but for some reason in this video her eye-movement can be easily perceived by a keen eye.
They based this genius project on the fact that most of viewers cannot check these details live, (it's actually simply less probable but not impossible) but tv producers have to realize that everything that goes on television then goes to Internet and viewers can watch it anytime in slow motion, full screen, close ups etc....Tv viewers can get distracted but it's not like thirty or twenty years ago, today tv watchers became real video experts. I really can't understand how Mr. Hannity who is a world famous tv professional could have made such a beginner's mistake.
The ironic side of this episode is Ms. Malkin's bestseller book title: "the culture of corruption", well this genious interview should be included in her book spin-off or better in the next re-print. (I would be happy to write a foreword) Also, if a bestselling author happens to be part of a staged interview, maybe viewers can doubt the fact she wrote her brand new book by herself, or if she had some ghostwriter helping her in the writing process.
Now a series of questions spontaneously come up:
If FOX news needs this kind of tricks, risking their credibility, this means they're really desperate. It seems they're exploring any possible way to discredit the health care public option even through news fabrication.
Indeed this episode was more funny than serious, because Ms. Malkin is just a source for opinions, not a source of facts. In effect she could have had the text learned by heart and then have it spitted out once she learned it. Maybe she was at the hairstylist and hadn't the time to do it.
But still even if it's not a big deal, the fact has to be analyzed because it's a matter of form. Why you need to spit out your bias under the form of interview instead of just reading a text message? It would have been nicer.
Michelle Malkin is a beautyful nice woman and everybody will forgive her because of a little reading...come on guys!!! Being Italian, gallantry is my second name...
Fox news should at least introducing the viewers to this new form of broadcasting and journalism, I think it would be fair to those journalism students who want to learn the job from real professionals!!
Certainly they should have a very good reason to set up such a strange interview, we are in the field of assumptions here: probably Ms. Malkin did not feel that well and preferred to read the answers instead of thinking to each of them when she was posed a question. It's understandable: a very committed intellective scholar doesn't have time for such a thing.
A couple of weeks ago, when Fox news was under the White House fire, Monica Crowley was defending Fox from the WH remarks by saying: "Fox news is the only network raising questions" I would say to beautyful Monica that Fox news not only raise questions but they also provide for the answers....because if you want to be fair and balanced you should provide not only for questions but for answers too.
The big deal now could be the fact that this episode might lead people to think that maybe there are more of these kind of interviews.....
It would be nice to see them all.
Some could also raise the question: Is this reflecting the Fox motto: "we report you decide?"
I really appreciate Fox news, I wouldn't be honest if I say I don't, despite having sometimes criticized its anchors, but being a tv narrative expert that's my job and that's also part of the game.
if you re passionate on news and reporting and you like a little bit of bias in your reports and interviews, you have to accept some critics as well.
Fox news programming is very passionate and I always tune in because I really love passionate journalism, as it's something very rare at today as people cannot care less of politics and social issues, that's why receiving critics and keeping up a confrontation is the most genuine, sincere and lovely human business. It would be very sad if reporting and news production being just a cold communication to the audience. Feedback and confrontation keep us alive and it's another step towards human evolution.
We won't suggest Fox news to check all Michelle Malkins interviews we suggest FOX news anchors to be more accurate on their guests booking.
Passion and fervor are great feelings but journalism is clarity, brevity and accuracy. The bias attitude and the hammering and bashing at every cost doesn't pay it. How can you think of fooling the American viewers by playing a soap opera dialogue instead of an interview?
And most of all once you re busted, your motto "fair and balanced" will sound like a joke. I think Michelle Malkin did not pay enough respect to
the Fox motto too.
Anyway these people at Fox they all are from the old school and they still have to realize that with the coming of the Internet age, television has changed. Mostly it's changed the way television is perceived and used.
Viewers do not watch tv just glued to the screen swallowing every Michelle Malkin who pops into the screen. These new generation of viewers might seem less careful on politic issues but they're more attentive and focused on the way you broadcast news and all sort of contents. Foreinstance documentaries and tv series always perform an expert analyzing a video explaining all details. From the Life of plants to Moon Landing to CSI there is always an expert performing video analysis on every single detail. How can you think viewers can let Michelle
Malkin walk into Fox News reading her piece and just walk away? Foolish.
Internet and technology gave viewers youtube, editing and slow motion tools. Look into the Internet there is a number of websites that check tv shows everyday looking for bloopers and all kind of mistakes: slipups.com, metacafe.com tvparty.com just to name you a few. The game has changed and viewers are not those silly folks of the fifties.
I think the anxiety and the fervor to talk against the public option and the dems was much stronger than set the stage up right and this strong feeling played Michelle Malkin a bad trick.
In central Italy there is a proverb that tells "the greedy festers your teeth!"
Print
Email
